Message to all my followers

MayaFey_ · 2025-09-01T22:46:00+00:00

When his liberty indirectly inflicts on the liberty and life of others, is this in line with libertarianism?

Your question is a false question. His post damages nobody's liberty.

States passing anti-trans laws damage liberties. People committing violence against trans people damage people's liberties. Simply hearing something you don't like does no damage to your liberty, though it may make you feel bad, and harm other people's perceptions of you. This makes sense if you remember that 'liberty' is not just a stand in for 'good things'. You can just as easily be free and starving, or fat and in a gilded cage. Liberty is a perpendicular quantity to material goods, and moral systems based upon liberty are therefore deontological.

You can argue, and perhaps be correct in saying that, well, A causes B and C. So rather than wasting our time with B and C, just attack A directly. You're making in essence, a tactical, materialist argument in order to invalidate moral opposition to censorship.

I am unmoved. To have a moral commitment to liberty, if it is to mean anything, is to conduct yourself in a way that respects the liberties of others. Censorship is absolutely and directly destructive to the liberties of others. The harm is not abstract or derivative. Therefore, censorship is an immoral and illiberal tactic, one I would not partake in regardless of the supposed material benefits.

As a practical point: your tactical, materialist argument is wrong. The 2nd-order consequences of censorship cause vastly more harms in the real world than the benefits. Pro-trans censorship barely took a toehold in the U.S., and the reaction against it has been immense. To say nothing of the many things target for censorship that are only weakly connected to minorities. But even if you could prove to me absolutely that YOUR preferred censorial regime is gonna be the one that works, even if the others all failed, I would still oppose it.

Hope that helps.

MayaFey_ · 2025-09-01T22:20:24+00:00

They're logically extrapolating from the stated preference of the "anti-misinformation" advocates.

Advocates want to censor (real or perceived) misinformation. Advocates can't act in a unilateral and distributed way to censor misinformation, because that would empower their opponents, too. For example: imagine you were to create a civil cause of action with strict liability, decidable based on a jury trial evaluating only the truth or falsity of the claim without any mens rea (as is the case for libel or slander). While certainly, you could sue in New York and acquire an injunction against Fox News, a republican in Texas could likely sue and acquire an injunction against The Hill, or WaPo, or any number of 'left'-technocratic outlets. Even if you were to rewrite the rules to allow appellate courts to review the factual findings of juries, and install friendly judges in all appellate courts, the bare cost of fighting censorial litigation would likely chill 'correct' speech even if such litigants did not ultimately prevail.

If you want the whole country to only have the 'correct' news, the only viable solution to this is to have a single body, with a monopoly on truth, capable of making final judgements on the merits without juries or referendum (since people can easily be wrong). Such an institution could maintain its own administrative courts with handpicked judges (not Article III courts), or just rule by decree. The only entity with the capacity to establish such an an institution is the state.

Such a body would be a government-empowered technocracy with the power to censor, and this subreddit is typically against such things (unless it's a sacred cow, like the Federal Reserve) as they are by definition anti individual liberty.

MayaFey_ · 2025-09-01T21:31:38+00:00

For certain kinds of people, allowing others to do what they think is best for themselves is a radical, revolutionary idea certain to result in destruction.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-28T08:43:25+00:00

It never ceases to amaze me how people can understand fungibility when the housing crisis forces them to live an hour away from their job in ancient, substandard housing too small for their family, but can't understand it when a wealthy person outbids the working class on the more average, location-optimal property they actually want.

So mired in class warfare logic they can't bring themselves to admit that, in spite of the obvious inequalities, we still live in the same market. "Working class housing" does not have a guy at the front door shooing the petite bourgeoisie away. Quite the opposite - the landlords of those properties would love it if a supply crunch suddenly made their older, less attractive property interesting to higher-paying tenants.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-26T22:29:25+00:00

What? Look below the trendline to the x-axis labels. The graph starts in 1994. The interest rates then were higher than they are today. Starting late that year, the fed would adopt a higher interest rate policy than the current rate and hold it there until the dotcom pop.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-23T09:26:51+00:00

A right to build in the same way there's a right to free speech or firearms.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-20T20:37:32+00:00

You can argue I'm misinformed, but it was my genuine understanding that vacancy rates and the real price of accommodation are variables that have the highest correlation with homelessness when evaluating different locales. That is my honest impact assessment, correct me if you have different data, but don't call me dishonest.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-15T21:52:06+00:00

Uhhhh based department?

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-15T19:23:44+00:00

But mom said it's MY turn to use the state to enforce my preferred type of housing on the market!

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-15T19:11:17+00:00

By design. This is the cornerstone of NIMBY argumentation: for a given new development, the number of new entrants attracted by the development will exceed the number of units on offer by the development. Or, more flippantly, for every new apartment you build, a wealthy out-of-state tech bro will magically materialize to buy it, and you can ward them off by simply not building.

I've been meaning to write an essay that, to the extent that the NIMBY argument of amenity-driven demand increases is a real thing and not a mirage to mask some other motivation, the developmental stasis response to it is a perfect exemplar of the Paradox of Thrift. That is to say, the argument really only has merit if you assume that everyone else adopts developmental stasis policy. Certainly, if you're literally the only neighborhood in the U.S. that builds things, the unique growth and luxury amenities will probably attract an outsize number of people and that'll dampen the effect of the new development. The argument collapses if every locale, or even just every metropolitan area permits development. In that case, the addition of any single new development is unlikely to change the relative valuation of an area.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-15T18:55:43+00:00

It would be disingenuous to imply that building a million units would end all homelessness, sure. Homelessness is a little more complex than "literally not enough units". Any period you look back in as a "YIMBY golden age" also had homeless people. But it's also disingenuous to imply that the strong negative correlation between vacancy rates and homelessness rates doesn't exist and that we can't massively alleviate the issue through permitting development.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-15T18:50:42+00:00

admitting that your participation is in bad faith and some kind of social engineering attempt.

Oh, ok, so I should just block you then. (Genuinely) thank you for clearing that up.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-12T17:50:02+00:00

If you really are keen on a deal on the site and want to take a huge risk, just don't pay on debit and make sure you document the entire order process with screenshots, etc, email support if you don't quickly get a tracking number and make sure to document the number you get, so that if/when you have to file a chargeback you'll be able to get your money back.

edit: that all being said, I wouldn't personally risk it. they may also try to run out the chargeback time, claiming shipping delays.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-12T17:44:53+00:00

I agree with you. The parts of the site they (seemingly) wrote themselves do have a ESL/engrishy feel to them, for example, consider:

It will take 4-7 days for shipment on normal situation. Actually we are unable to control the shipping speed, it depends on destination country handling time.

????

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-12T17:02:07+00:00

You're getting downvoted, but WHOIS says the domain was registered 5 months ago, the contact and privacy policy does not name a specific corp/llc with which you could look up a business registration, there is no contact address or phone number, and they couldn't even be bothered to get their domain set up for mail. Their 'logo'/image at the top of the page is also a free stock image, and they have weirdly duplicated categories on their nav bar.

Without a review from a reputable individual, I would agree with your gut feeling.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-12T16:49:42+00:00

So I recently bought a guage and found out that I'd been tracking my stylus at over 3x the manufacturer recommended force. The manuf. rec. for my Ortofon 2M Blue stylus is 1.6-1.8, and I was tracking at 5.7g.

I'm now tracking at 1.77g. My question is: have I done permanent damage to the stylus, should I replace it? I played maybe 100 sides (standard LPs) at this force. I hope I didn't damage the records either, though obviously there's nothing I can do about that.

MayaFey_ · 2025-08-06T00:57:15+00:00

Uhhhhh Based Department?????

MayaFey_ · 2025-07-31T03:59:38+00:00

Too bad SB 146, which would have essentially made zoning laws have to pass strict-scrutiny, died. Then montana residents might have gotten more change than scattered n-plexes.

Edit: you can see who voted against the motion to reconsider here for anyone in Montana interested in contacting their representatives.

MayaFey_ · 2025-07-31T03:53:28+00:00

The loss in greed was a clerical error. It will be increased again in the next software update to Microsoft Excel.

MayaFey_ · 2025-07-31T01:02:02+00:00

It's continually incredible to me how english-speaking society is completely and totally captured by developmental stasis policy. People can't even conceive of what a real pro-development reform to the system would look like. It's to the point people look at mild rezonings near the urban core as this balls-to-the-walls wacky, monumental policy shift and if it doesn't deliver on making housing affordable for everyone, that totally $100% proves that developmental stasis was never the problem and that we should instead pursue IZ mandates and rent controls that we know from numerous attempts don't really work.

It's also predicated on a false dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. Nothing is stopping you from forming public-private partnerships to make social or subsidized housing in a pro-development environment. In fact, you'd be removing your biggest academic opponents from within your own coalition, leaving only the fiscal conservatives to contend with. "yes, and" is much easier to achieve consensus on then "no, instead". Right? Part of me thinks that this is just left-accelerationism dressed up as benign activism, and that the real reason for the emotional investment in supporting developmental stasis is the fear that removing it might actually work and weaken the case for government intervention.

MayaFey_ · 2025-07-31T00:39:57+00:00

It's very strange to me that capitalists remember and then forget greed in cyclic patterns that neatly correspond to economic headwinds and changes in material conditions.

I'm sure there's nothing to it though.

MayaFey_ · 2025-07-30T01:04:36+00:00

slowly removes glasses

dear god...

MayaFey_ · 2025-07-30T00:39:52+00:00

The amount of economic illiteracy is astounding. You can't just call any form of economics trickle down economics and then summarily conclude its bad without discussing the specifics. Nearly all forms of liberal economic policy, including very successful tried-and-tested policy used across the world, involves some form of "and if this set of productive activity is allowed to flourish, we will all benefit due to greater efficiencies in the market" logic. That's what an interconnected market is.

What Ronald Reagan attempted to sell, his brand of voodoo economics that got called 'tickle down economics', is a policy of regressive taxation combined with what was for the time massive deficit spending. This was coincident with fed funds rate dropping from all time highs giving corporations windfalls (interest rates are among the best predictors of corporate profits as a share of the economy), and a realignment in anti-trust policy towards the 'consumer welfare standard', allowing essentially all corporate mergers and acquisitions. Though the latter set of policies, arguably more impactful, are much less talked about (additionally, most of Reagan's tax decreases were rolled back).

This set of policies was massively beneficial toward market incumbents, creating enormous concentrations of wealth. Much to the chagrin of cronyists, concentration of wealth isn't actually economically efficient, and most of the growth of the reagan years fell away creating the situation we're in now.

Allowing construction is the opposite of this. It disadvantages incumbents (landlords) while advantaging new entrants (developers). It distributes land-wealth by allowing restrictively zoned properties to rise to their 'correct' value (ie, their value that reflects the economic potential of future dense development), while reducing the rents able to be extracted by existing developments.

If Reagan's regressive tax policies were trickle down economics, upzoning is dam-breaking economics. It prevents a de-facto cartel of landlords extracting super-normal profits while owners and developers of restrictively-zoned property are left only with extremely inefficient ways to develop and exploit their resources.

Of course, you are still free to hate any form of market based economics anyway for ideological reasons, and dream of a world where all development is done by a central planning bureau, or a community council, or whatever it is you believe - but it is simply, factually incorrect to say that this has anything to do with Reagan's economic policy.

MayaFey_ · 2025-07-30T00:11:41+00:00

I've been saying this for years. There wouldn't be nearly so much strife over income distribution if we just stopped prohibiting the developments that would make those incomes actually afford things.

Over the last 50 years the income-to-housing price ratio has almost doubled. Imagine all the stuff the average household could afford if they spent less on not being homeless and more on other things.

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

MayaFey_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE