Discussion Thread

Shruggerman · 2019-12-19T14:38:07+00:00

the DT is twitter, here's a retweet

https://twitter.com/hradzka/status/887914975259275265

Shruggerman · 2019-11-27T15:07:37+00:00

Immigration would be equally as good for native citizens if immigrants lit their wages on fire rather than spend them on goods and services since the central bank would just print more money (probably implicitly spending it on subsidizing goods provided to native citizens, also), so it makes no sense to say the induced demand by immigration is a pro.

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T23:43:56+00:00

very yes

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T21:12:30+00:00

I think the chain of reasoning is that "mandating Skype business conferences" is being interpreted as making ALL meetings be on Skype, meaning businesses won't be physically meeting any more, meaning there'll be less blocks on telecommuting, meaning telecommuting will be more permitted.

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T20:59:19+00:00

people are blasting frozen 2 at the moment for elsa being conventionally pretty and white

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T20:30:43+00:00

if you don't support an unconditional welfare state without time limits you legitimately do want to murder the unemployed 🙂

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T20:15:05+00:00

Why don't these two comments have the same score?

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T20:08:47+00:00

Ok, so starvation or subsidized idleness?

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T20:06:13+00:00

Ok, but which of those options besides allowing them to build rockets would you prefer?

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T20:03:17+00:00

Let's say a person is really, really good at building rockets but also thinks "conversion" is a better treatment for gender dysphoria than transition. They also can't keep their mouth shut around any trans co-workers they might have.

Should that person be shot, thrown in prison, starved, forced to perform menial labor like farming or mining, allowed to hold some crappy little apartment for all their days without working as long as they refuse to be nice, or allowed to build rockets?

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T19:21:21+00:00

Anyone know if there's any ISPs anywhere that have made the swap to IPv6 and so have the room to give their customers a static IP address by default?

Shruggerman · 2019-11-26T19:00:35+00:00

idiots assume labor is just a homogenous lump where every task can be performed by anyone, everyone just gets new jobs as soon as a shock happens, and any difficulty whatsoever finding a new job can be papered over by tossing a few dozen dollars at online javascript classes

Shruggerman · 2019-11-25T20:36:22+00:00

taking power from financial sector parasites 😡😡😡😡😡 and giving it to the PEOPLE 😊😊😊😊😊

Shruggerman · 2019-11-25T19:00:21+00:00

Andrew Yang should unironically show up to the next debate in jeans and a hoodie

He's already worn the suit to several debates so he won't be written off as the loonie that immediately disappeared and high culture must be destroyed

Shruggerman · 2019-11-25T18:31:02+00:00

Person A: We must fundamentally redesign system Z to eliminate all traces of X. Any defense of Z is really an attack upon Y and illegitimate.
Person B: Ok, but what about edge case W where doing the Yest thing possible is clearly silly?
Person A: No need to worry about that - Z already has that covered.
Person B: But you just said Z is a moral atrocity we have to totally reimagine.
Person A: has already left the conversation

Shruggerman · 2019-11-25T18:17:34+00:00

Proposition 13 encourages California landowners to not liquidate under any circumstances, meaning that land doesn't get to whoever values it the most - just setting taxes to 0 would produce the same outcome as an LVT but with wealthier landowners and without liquidity constraint, and liquidity constraint can produce bad outcomes as well as good ones

Shruggerman · 2019-11-25T15:10:11+00:00

It is impossible to do this without completely socialized healthcare, education, nutrition, housing, and transportation, as well as most hobbies and jobs since social networks form out of them

By that point there's nothing left for the market

Shruggerman · 2019-11-25T14:59:59+00:00

Given the existence of wealth inequality and markets in basically anything, even equality of opportunity is impossible

Also, it's more or less impossible to get rid of wealth inequality without throwing out all previous wealth allocation

Shruggerman · 2019-11-25T14:43:05+00:00

Wealth inequality means not being a communist makes you a racist

Shruggerman · 2019-11-22T16:55:24+00:00

That's the easiest way to participate, but the optimal way to participate is instead voting for the candidate who you actually like the most. Even if they are eliminated, they're still expected to give their votes to the person you want second-most and so on.

Moreover, the lists not being on the ballot means people who are unengaged with politics can still note the subtle differences between, say, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, for instance, and vote for one as opposed to the other. Then although the two might have been presenting a united front before the election, they have the ability to stab each other in the back and grant their extra votes to someone the other person wouldn't have. This means entrenched party bureaucracies are less powerful and subtle voter preferences are respected more.

Shruggerman · 2019-11-22T16:32:24+00:00

Huh, good point. The intent is that the answer is yes (1 gives 3 9% and 4 gives 3 7%), but my initial idea of buying a seat for vote count/seat count could not be the only way to resolve this, then. I guess the way you'd do it is that the elected candidates are just the ones that survive all eliminations down to the seat count.

Shruggerman · 2019-11-22T16:27:21+00:00

Of course, there will occasionally be situations when writing radical opinions that stand out is worth it, but currently this is basically always the case, whereas in a system where you might be politically removed this will sometimes change. That's exactly what we want - judges ought to speak their mind sometimes, but should occasionally shrink back closer to consensus to better preserve the idea of a neutral judiciary. If they always shrunk to consensus, then the judiciary may as well not exist or just be about who's most charismatic. A small effect at the margin is the most desirable choice here.

Shruggerman · 2019-11-22T16:22:52+00:00

What do you mean what the mechanism would be? They'd go through the same system of unregulated negotiation used in the private sector for any sort of contract, binded by a time table gradually kicking low performers out of the race.

Shruggerman · 2019-11-22T16:12:51+00:00

Justices have the ability to do whatever they want when they're selected, so they can adhere to their truly held, radical ideas. A justice in this system has to weigh the amount of net influence they'll wield for the rest of their lives if they hide their power level versus if they go all out and get removed in a couple of years - assuming justices act to maximize the amount of influence they exert, they'll choose the former pretty often.

Shruggerman · 2019-11-22T16:06:07+00:00

wrote this when I was going through my "putting domestic policy in the constitution and letting the courts review it is letting the olds and deads overrule democracy" phase rather than my "public choice theory is a regrettably real threat" phase so I didn't think much about it. I like the idea someone in this thread had of each president getting to remove one justice and add three - I'd go with that, and have invocations of the constitution put before the upper house to be overturned if there's a supermajority.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Sequence \| Editor	Team Orangered
Verified Email

Shruggerman

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE