Policy Positions at a Glance
If, for some reason you want to know where I stand on the issues commonly trotted out during the election cycle without doing a lot of reading.
Policy |
Position |
Guns |
|
Minimum Wage |
|
Welfare |
|
States' Rights / Localism |
|
Immigration |
|
Voting |
|
Term Limits |
|
Money in Politics |
|
Welfare |
|
Gay Marriage |
|
Free Trade |
|
Energy |
|
Abortion |
|
Healthcare |
|
"Defense" |
|
Education |
|
Monetary Policy |
|
Environment |
Reality Doesn't Give a Shit About Your Pet Political System
So, you think you can keep taxing and spending at very high rates with no consequences or that homosexuality is the biggest issue in your country right now? I have two friends who think otherwise: reality and math. You see, you can value whatever you want. Non-agents don't get to make demands on what you value though, thanks to the magic of dissolving the free will question, you are still affected even to your desires by non-agent parts of reality.
So, great, you can choose what to value and nothing is objectively "better or worse" than anything else. What you don't get to do is decide what's possible. You may be really REALLY be attached to your political worldview, but you can't make the consequences of putting that worldview into practice not exist. If your political worldview is particularly unwieldy, you will abandon it either by changing your mind when faced with the difficulty (since practicality trumps idealism) or you'll abandon it by dying from the consequences.
So, great, you can choose what to value and nothing is objectively "better or worse" than anything else. What you don't get to do is decide what's possible. You may be really REALLY be attached to your political worldview, but you can't make the consequences of putting that worldview into practice not exist. If your political worldview is particularly unwieldy, you will abandon it either by changing your mind when faced with the difficulty (since practicality trumps idealism) or you'll abandon it by dying from the consequences.
Evolution is Real, Sorry
Over 40% of the American public still has serious doubts about evolution. If they have a better way to get from low complexity to complexity without resorting to an unproveable "godditit" I'd love to hear it. If you have variation, heredity, and selection, then you must get evolution. Do you know which word in that sentence is my favorite? Must. Evolution is merely those 3 things.
It's pretty obvious that heredity exists. Cows don't give birth to humans. Children tend to have the characteristics of their parents or, in the case of recessive traits, those of ancestors in their relatively recent history.
It's pretty obvious that variation exists. Parents don't give birth to clones of one or the other parent. Nor do they just create a perfect morph of their two traits.
It's pretty obvious that selection exists. Some creatures can better survive in the world and are able to have more offspring.
Evolution deniers focus too much on random chance. Yes, variation is arbitrary - one could call it random. Selection has some random aspects such as bad luck. However, selection is not completely random. Heredity is not random. That alone is enough to, in the long run, swamp randomness.
It's pretty obvious that heredity exists. Cows don't give birth to humans. Children tend to have the characteristics of their parents or, in the case of recessive traits, those of ancestors in their relatively recent history.
It's pretty obvious that variation exists. Parents don't give birth to clones of one or the other parent. Nor do they just create a perfect morph of their two traits.
It's pretty obvious that selection exists. Some creatures can better survive in the world and are able to have more offspring.
Evolution deniers focus too much on random chance. Yes, variation is arbitrary - one could call it random. Selection has some random aspects such as bad luck. However, selection is not completely random. Heredity is not random. That alone is enough to, in the long run, swamp randomness.
Making Sense of Rights
I have a right, you have a right, I have no right, you have no right. This language is highly related to moral language (it may even be moral language). Rights (and duties) are problematic from a non-contractarian point of view. What does it mean to have something? How can the existence of that something be determined? Since rights aren't something inviolable like gravity, of what use is it to claim that they are natural or inalienable?
The contractarian position has far less problems, but is still stupid. I adopt something which could be lumped into a quasi-contractarian camp, but which avoids the "starting problem" or the need to imbue the state with some sort of special power.
The contractarian position has far less problems, but is still stupid. I adopt something which could be lumped into a quasi-contractarian camp, but which avoids the "starting problem" or the need to imbue the state with some sort of special power.
The Sports Team Mentality in Politics
Why Elect People at All?
Remember the Segway? The self-balancing two-wheeled personal transportation device which was supposed to change everything? All the complex arrangements of gyroscopes and balance sensors could be replaced by a simple and cheap, though unattractive, alternative: adding an out-of-line third wheel to form a stable plane. While I appreciate the engineering work which went into the Segway, why spend so much effort working around the deficiencies introduced by demanding that it only have two wheels? Sometimes the obvious solution is the correct one.
So, from the Segway, let's segue into politics. Why have elections at all? The problems are numerous and the primary benefit of getting the people to identify with the system can be had in other, much simpler and less problematic ways (though many including myself would question categorizing identification with a political system as a benefit). If people are going to make laws, why not have them be representative of the people they're to make laws for? The simple solution is sortition.
So, from the Segway, let's segue into politics. Why have elections at all? The problems are numerous and the primary benefit of getting the people to identify with the system can be had in other, much simpler and less problematic ways (though many including myself would question categorizing identification with a political system as a benefit). If people are going to make laws, why not have them be representative of the people they're to make laws for? The simple solution is sortition.
Bureaucracies Shift to Self-Perpetuation Over Time
On Statheism: Why do so many Atheists Worship God?
... and by god I mean the state. You don't need an invisible god when a visible one exists in The White House. The state and god both exist as ideas, but the state also exists in concrete implementations - a kind of "quasi-order from collective insanity." I get that atheists would assert the existence of states beyond concept form. What I don't get is the worship or the mental compartmentalization that many atheists who purport to be rational actually perform - though I'll make some guesses later.
That there are so many parallels between organized religion and statism and that the largest group that people generally assume are rational, atheists, often adopt statism (worship of the state), has led to the creation of a term you can search for on Google, YouTube, and even Urban Dictionary: statheists (pronounced stayth-e-ists).
That there are so many parallels between organized religion and statism and that the largest group that people generally assume are rational, atheists, often adopt statism (worship of the state), has led to the creation of a term you can search for on Google, YouTube, and even Urban Dictionary: statheists (pronounced stayth-e-ists).
An Abortion Stance Which Makes Sense
Looking for a safe stance on abortion? Neither was I. I've accepted that both of the major sides in the debate are arguing for (and against) different things. Couple the strong emotions surrounding the issue and I didn't expect to even find a sane stance on abortion. But I ended up finding one when making a judgement in terms of being an effective actualizer, helping foster good society, and keeping my options open.
I believe that the abortion debate exposes two competing moral evaluation functions at the subconscious level the strong aversion against infanticide and the strong disposition to see sexual choice as important. It's also a fight between the utilitarian calculus of having to raise a child for 18 years versus the more primal instincts against truncating one's genetic lineage.
As I've pointed out elsewhere as an example of taking things to their logical conclusion, both sides are hypocrites in terms of their own assertions.
I believe that the abortion debate exposes two competing moral evaluation functions at the subconscious level the strong aversion against infanticide and the strong disposition to see sexual choice as important. It's also a fight between the utilitarian calculus of having to raise a child for 18 years versus the more primal instincts against truncating one's genetic lineage.
As I've pointed out elsewhere as an example of taking things to their logical conclusion, both sides are hypocrites in terms of their own assertions.
I Like Guns
Schooling in the Age of Wikipedia
Truth, Trust, and Trade
On Race Realism - Stop Denying Evolution
Ok, I'm going to post something here which may piss people off, but I don't care. Why? Because I've never shied away from an honest seeking to have true beliefs due to the consequences. I'm irrational like that.
Today's topic: race. Is it MERELY a social construct? That is, does it have no biological underpinnings?
If you know me, you know I hate mereism because it's an attempt to disparage something without owning your values and just admitting it like an overman. Race IS a social construct. So is the number 2. So is oxygen. Concepts are made by agents and reality is carved at whatever joints agents decide to conceptualize into existence. Whether or not the propositions the concepts in the mental map make conform to reality is a different story, but reality itself can be divided conceptually any number of ways.
Today's topic: race. Is it MERELY a social construct? That is, does it have no biological underpinnings?
If you know me, you know I hate mereism because it's an attempt to disparage something without owning your values and just admitting it like an overman. Race IS a social construct. So is the number 2. So is oxygen. Concepts are made by agents and reality is carved at whatever joints agents decide to conceptualize into existence. Whether or not the propositions the concepts in the mental map make conform to reality is a different story, but reality itself can be divided conceptually any number of ways.
The REAL Social Contract
For those who don't know, the social contract is a political theory which asserts that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of a state in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.
Where is this contract that I never signed? Oh! It's implicit (and hypothetical). Good thing it's not arbitrary such that an accident of my birth binds me to it. Wait? It is. Well then, at least it's not unilateral such that the government is beholden to me and can't change the terms halfway through. Hold on... getting some more information here.... What the fuck?!
Where is this contract that I never signed? Oh! It's implicit (and hypothetical). Good thing it's not arbitrary such that an accident of my birth binds me to it. Wait? It is. Well then, at least it's not unilateral such that the government is beholden to me and can't change the terms halfway through. Hold on... getting some more information here.... What the fuck?!
Wealth is Non-Zero Sum AND Finite
Every Political Party is Ridiculous
Sometimes Violence is the Answer
Health Care : It's Economics Not Brain Surgery
Localism
Wars : Let's Smash Two Cars Together and See which is Stronger
The Drug War
Is it Terrorism to Kill a Drone Pilot at His House?
Compulsion is not Compassion!
I want to start a new acronym: WWJF. Who would Jesus force? "But," comes the immediate and wide-spread complaint, "Jesus wouldn't force anyone to do anything." Bingo! So why the hell are you forcing others to do something and calling it compassion while believing that you're emulating Jesus, or even a good person?
It may lead to better results (I doubt it). It may be necessary (I also doubt it). What it's not is compassion. You don't have a right to be wrong and you don't get to pretend one thing is another unless you're trying to subvert people's thought patterns. At least I admit that I'm trying to do that here. So why do people do it so much? I have a few pet theories.
One involves a dose of dopamine that one gets when (s)he believes (s)he is doing good. The other involves signalling to others about how in-group one is and "out-piousing" others.
It may lead to better results (I doubt it). It may be necessary (I also doubt it). What it's not is compassion. You don't have a right to be wrong and you don't get to pretend one thing is another unless you're trying to subvert people's thought patterns. At least I admit that I'm trying to do that here. So why do people do it so much? I have a few pet theories.
One involves a dose of dopamine that one gets when (s)he believes (s)he is doing good. The other involves signalling to others about how in-group one is and "out-piousing" others.
Why Fiddling with Currency is Corrosive to Society
I'm a big fan of truth, trust, and trade. In fact, I believe that they are critical to the continuance and proper functioning of a society. Each of the three aspects has consequences for the other and the bolstering or degradation of any of them has effects on the others.
I started thinking, what is one aspect of society which touches on all three aspects? Currency.
"Phony currency" ends up being a lie, a secret and a scam, and makes existing stores of "wealth direction potential" less useful.
I started thinking, what is one aspect of society which touches on all three aspects? Currency.
- Currency should represent truth - that the drafts on wealth I have represent something I've done (or am) that another has valued.
- Currency must be widely trusted - both in the moment and in the long-term.
- Currency must be useful for trade - that's its primary purpose.
"Phony currency" ends up being a lie, a secret and a scam, and makes existing stores of "wealth direction potential" less useful.
Why I Love Bitcoin
Marginal Tax Rate != Effective Tax Rate
Cute airplane. What's not so cute: capital flight.
Truth Trumps Anonymity
Minarchy doesn't have to Suck
Four comparatively easy (relative to anarchy) fixes which can minarchy suck a lot less.
I believe anarchy is possible - just not without some major changes, and definitely not as anarcho-capitalism is currently sold. However, minarchism may be good enough. The inflection point of maximal human liberty may be with slightly less liberty in certain areas. Since I'm not an aspie, I accept this. Hell, most anarchists already accept this by being willing to impose restrictions on murder and assault. Those restrictions work because those actions are highly detrimental to the freedom of others and most don't want to perform them so the opportunity costs of their denial are low for the population overall.
I believe anarchy is possible - just not without some major changes, and definitely not as anarcho-capitalism is currently sold. However, minarchism may be good enough. The inflection point of maximal human liberty may be with slightly less liberty in certain areas. Since I'm not an aspie, I accept this. Hell, most anarchists already accept this by being willing to impose restrictions on murder and assault. Those restrictions work because those actions are highly detrimental to the freedom of others and most don't want to perform them so the opportunity costs of their denial are low for the population overall.
An IMMODEST Panarchist Proposal
