Tuesday assorted links

Comments

Liberal as in low taxation and defense of property rights, or liberal as in gender and racial employment quotas, high taxation and social programs, and labelling of hate speech on pretty much anything annoying to the liberal priests.

You are referring to #2.

Christopher Claassen is at Glasgow, do it might mean "liberal" as understood in the UK. It's not clear.

What does "liberal, anti-majoritarian" mean?

"Liberal" in my article refers to the liberal aspects of liberal democracy:

Electoral / majoritarian aspects: (1) the extent to which the chief executive and legislature are appointed through popular elections; (2) the integrity of those elections; (3) the share of adult citizens with the right to vote in those elections; (4) freedom of association; and (5) freedom of expression.

Liberal / minoritarian aspects: (1) judicial and (2) legislative constraints on the executive, as well as (3) the legal equality of citizens and respect for individual rights.

Liberal democracy is a combination of the electoral and liberal aspects.

I use measures of democracy from V-Dem

Thank you!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

3 Looks like a way to circumvent the costly and complicated labor union status quo.

>She told LM that the Federation of Finnish Enterprises' minimum wage proposal was ultimately an attempt to water down the current system.

Derek, hello from Finland - you are spot on.

It's disappointing to see such a misleading headline published on this blog.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Tyler reporting from the future.

Respond

Add Comment

It's still Monday, right?

1 - Due Process Is For Criminals, Not Law-Abiding Citizens.

Why not let each person choose how much due process they are willing to pay for?

"Let"? Why make people pay for due process?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Me: ok, I need some quick money to send to that autistic Swedish teen, so I’ll accept torture to lower my premiums. (Later) whoops, I didn’t mean torture torture, stop!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

2. What about illiberal counter-majoritarian regimes?

Respond

Add Comment

1. That is a bit of a stretch, to say that state-administered criminal law is an innovation of the past few centuries. The ancient Athenians had criminal laws, for which Socrates was punished, and not by a fine payable to the wronged party, and so did the Romans.

Hammurabi also had a couple of things to say about crime.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#1 Even if fines vary by wealth, there are important bounds. A significant percentage of the population have almost no net wealth. For these people to buy crime vouchers, do they have to agree to very harsh punishments? And you can choose to take a big financial penalty and avoid prison-type penalties? Don't think this would fly for repugnant crimes.

#4 Don't like the FT review. Basically says "Yeah nice logic and facts, but Big Business is icky".

If vouchers see you as low risk, they will charge a low premium, regardless of your wealth. It is those with high risk that would have to choose between high premiums, harsh punishments, or other ways to deter their crimes.

Is there a danger that people could "save up" their risk profile for when they "needed" a crime? Good family, upstanding member of society, no criminal history, meek personality. Get one cheap murder.

That's already true today. If you've never done anything like a murder, people will find it hard to believe that you did one, and so if you cover your tracks reasonably carefully, you can probably get away with this one.

Um, Robin? Is there something you'd like to get off your chest?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"If vouchers see you as low risk, they will charge a low premium, regardless of your wealth." Really? Why? Seems to me they would charge as much as they can, and would lobby hard to put in barriers to entry to protect their ability to do so.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

2) "We only want democracy when it lets us do what we want!"

We're Why We Can't Have Nice Things.

I try not to argue against anything which is truly majoritarian, for what it's worth.

I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

How popular was gay marriage?
Interracial marriage?
Miranda rights?
Freedom of speech?
Internment of the Japanese in 1942?

We learned from the folly of Athens. Let’s not jump 2500 years backwards.

There are exceptions, but I think a reluctance to criticize majority opinion is a good starting place in any democracy. Then, sure. Question whether there are in fact extenuating circumstances.

That runs counter to the entire idea of the Bill of Rights and constitutional constraints.

The majority often immediately jumps the shark. Mandatory minimums for drugs, segregation and Jim Crow, obscenity laws, sodomy laws just to name a few at home.

Abroad you can go full Godwin mode to see the results of a majority in action. Execution of blasphemers, stoning for adultery, throwing gays off rooftops in Gaza City.

You seem to be forcibly misreading what I wrote.

I used the words "try not" in my first comment, and "a reluctance" in the second.

Neither of these things demands any conclusion. Not to the "try" or the "reluctance."

They are dispositional starting places.

Respond

Add Comment

To put a number on it though, probably nine times out of ten you can just go with what people want, under the framework of a constitutional democracy.

Your white privilege is showing again.

Respond

Add Comment

Agree to strongly disagree.

The heuristic of basing one’s morality on whatever 50% + 1 believes has a long historical record. And it’s uniformly terrible.

But enough said.

Both agreeing to follow the 50% +1 and agreeing to follow some lower representation thereof have resulted in millennia of disasters.

It's as if questioning our own wisdom about anything is a consistently worthwhile activity.

Respond

Add Comment

Does having a respect for the opinions of others, including a majority of others, really "undermine" morality?

I don't think so, and where the two come in conflict, the problem can be decomposed.

There is what we decided, and there is what I preferred.

You almost had it. But you turned it into an us versus them scenario. And then covered your tail by saying ‘but all exceptions excluded.’

You’ve negated your claims and backtracked to the point of nothingness.

So ok. You like majoritarian opinions except when you disagree. Also, water is wet.

This is neither charitable nor honest. All heat and no light.

Fewer scissor statements.

Less of this please.

Oh my God, can you ever read a paragraph and get the content?

I would hope that all of us respect elections in America, and that all of us can remember our own preferences.

if we are unhappy there are more conversations to be had and more elections to be run.

Uncharitable and deeply immoral.

Fewer scissor statements please. This is intentionally inflammatory. Gays have won the right to marriage based on the courts, not democracy.

He is advocating for denying the basic human right of marriage to adults.

The majority is not a moral opinion, it’s a coward’s one.

We get it. You hate interracial marriage, gay rights, transgender rights, aboriginal rights , gay marriage rights...

That is just throwing up chaff. Anything to distract from what I did say.

"If we are unhappy there are more conversations to be had and more elections to be run."

Crazy how you have backed into a corner where you are denying basic civics lessons.

Respect the law, but if you don't like it, work to change it.

Problem is, some things are so immoral that majorities should not be allowed to enact them. Like slavery, banning gay marriage, etc. Surely you understand the point there.

How would abolitionists 'work to change' slavery in the South? Never would have happened democratically.

How early did I use "constitutional" in this thread?

Respond

Add Comment

That said, there is an even a more gray area surrounding civil disobedience.

Would you have taken up arms and followed John Brown? Killed a Marine doing his job?

....what I would have done about slavery in 1859 , but I do know that your argument here is that there was nothing to be done, because there was no way to vote it out.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#2 The electorate does not like a vocal minority telling everyone what to do. And if the minority keeps pushing, the electorate will react by... allowing a violent minority to reign over everyone!

Respond

Add Comment

5. The history of artificial currency units (Libra-relevant).
---
A liquid FX market works just fine. That is what libra needs, let anyone spend in their currency of choice and make the FX exchange as fast and smooth as possible. Adding an artificial currency zone is an accounting trick that creates an unnecessary account entry.

Bitcoin is a FX exchange system that let's one hold an intermediate value before fully completing the exchange. But bitcoin includes an automatic central bank hedge.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-network-hash-rate-mysteriously-flash-crashes-by-40

The flash drop remains unexplained as of press time and is all the more striking given the Bitcoin network’s record-breaking string of new all-time high hash rates throughout summer.

Just five days ago, Cointelegraph had reported that Bitcoin’s hash rate had passed a record 102 quintillion hashes in a historic milestone.

As previously noted, the hash rate of a cryptocurrency — sometimes referred to as hashing or computing power — is a parameter that gives the measure of the number of calculations that a given network can perform each second.

A higher hash rate means greater competition among miners to validate new blocks; it also increases the number of resources needed for performing a 51% attack, making the network more secure.

By press time, Bitcoin’s hash rate has somewhat recovered back to almost 88,300,000 TH/s — yet remains well below its earlier records.
---
The discount rate for bitcoin is equivalent to the queue size. When buyers are willing to wait for the cheaper ledger service then they are less concerned abut beating the central bank to the punch.

I should note that queue waits are what drives most of existence and makes the hologram tree work. I always refer to Walmart queue management as a metaphor for everything that happens.

An odd echo of H. L. Mencken: "The basic fact about human existence is not that it is a tragedy, but that it is a bore. It is not so much a war as an endless standing in line. The objection to it is not that it is predominantly painful, but that it is lacking in sense."

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Speaking of majoritarianism,

"More than half (55%) of Americans would support impeachment if President Trump suspended military aid to Ukraine in order to push the country's officials to investigate Joe Biden."

https://t.co/zYgndTWDmk

Wrong place, sorry.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

2. By "...the liberal, counter-majoritarian aspects of democracy...", I presume the authors are referring to the non-democratic aspects of... democracy.

Regardless, that is some lousy writing.

Respond

Add Comment

2. Republicans (I can't call them conservative) in America are anti-democratic; indeed, they go to great lengths to rig the system so that the Republican minority maintains control. Republicans are the most enthusiastic when depressing the vote of the majority. As for our libertarian friends, it's axiomatic they don't care for democracy; indeed, the libertarian-authoritarian axis derives from the libertarian distrust of the majority. The libertarian approach to public choice is an oxymoron. This helps explain the Republican-libertarian alliance, the alliance that Trumpism is causing to fray. Some of our libertarian friends have responded by attacking social and economic liberals: Trumpism may not be so good, but "liberal elites" (you know who they are) are worse has become the rallying cry. What do self-described libertarians make of Trump's speech today attacking globalism and praising nationalism. I recall a different time, when libertarians were praising globalism for reducing world poverty and inequality. I won't despair. This Sunday Singapore hosted a near flawless Formula One race, Formula One being the sport of global billionaires. Almost three hundred thousand spectators watched amidst the glittering background of this enormously wealthy city-state. Even the fireworks display was flawless. Ferrari, my favorite team, took first and second, beating the leading Mercedes team. Democracy isn't everything.

"Trumpism may not be so good, but "liberal elites" (you know who they are) are worse has become the rallying cry. What do self-described libertarians make of Trump's speech today attacking globalism and praising nationalism."

Globalism is good - it lifts billions out of starvation/deprivation poverty and presumably binds the world together this reducing the likelihood of global war. Presumably.

The problem is that globalism has losers, in some places too many losers, and the system changes too fast for some people to adjust before they become senescent.

The difference between approaches to losers is what matters. One side, with HC as it's champion says "f*ck you, you are a deplorable loser and I don't need your vote" while the other side, with Trump as it's champion, says "I care about you and I am going to help you". Both sides are probably lying, but we line up behind them.

I assure you, Hillary isn't lying when she says "f* you"

Trump Is a White Nationalist Who Inspires Terrorism

But Hillary was bad, because she saw it coming, and called it deplorable.

You had a solid 24 hours.

Totally unnecessary and inflammatory comment. And a link not to an article, but a partisan Op-Ed. EdR was at least attempting to make a comment about globalization and its affect on politics before he went off about Hillary.

Less of this please.

You chose the wrong entry point.

EdR makes the classic bait and switch that "globalism has losers" and those people were who Clinton was calling "the deplorables."

Nope.

She said, to expand the quote: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists."

Two baskets. One explicitly is made up of glabalism's losers with a backwards looking MAGA, and the *other* is made up of the racists who *have* been shooting up temples and Walmart ever since.

Finally, you complain about the op ed. Are you going to stand here flat footed and say there has been no increase of white nationalist violence coinciding with and growing out of the Trump movement?

Infinitely less of this please.

This is all heat and no light. You’re not arguing for truth but rather attempting to score tribal points for no reason. This is literally all partisan red meat and has zero truth seeking resonance.

You don’t know who Hillary intended to call deplorables. It’s a meaningless argument. So leave it be. Both of you.

Hillary is politically meaningless. She lost and lives in NY getting on with her life. Leave it alone.

The basket of your political opponents that have committed politically motivated murders is approximately 5. Out of 175 million people. So get real. This is incredibly uncharitable and willfully insulting and misleading.

Stop. You’re becoming emotional. Less of this emotional word vomit please.

Let’s stick to facts instead of opinions.

This is bullshit.

This is nothing more than don't tell me the truth because it might hurt feelings.

Hi mouse!

The white nationalist meme is bs - it's a tiny movement of truly deplorable losers. The left has it's crazies too.

HRC said she was going to put coal miners out of business. Trump called them "our coal miners".

Which worked better?

Take a deep breath, you'll feel better.

So you agree with Hillary that the racists are deplorable. Great. That's all it was.

Remember Breitbart? Remember this?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism

It's good that it is repudiated, but it was real.

Racists are deplorable. We agree. How about that?

The problem with HRC 's statement is that she basically said half of Trump's supporters were racist. This meme was repeated many times by disappointed Democrats. It's false and libelous and very damaging to our nation.

I don't read Breitbart. I don't like blatantly partisan media. It's not helpful.
There are merits to the arguments on both sides of the aisle. The politicians will line up on either side, but that doesn't mean we have to do the same.

Here's a pro tip you guys should have got a long time ago. When someone criticizes white supremacists, don't say "OMG, they are criticizing us!"

Respond

Add Comment

Also note that the architect of that Breitbart, alt-right, white nationalist adventure was rewarded with a job in the effing White House.

Respond

Add Comment

Your intelligence gives you a chance...but you are still caught in a partisan bubble. Even if we concede Hillary was truly being libelous to half the country (she wasn't, she was obviously not referring to all Trump supporters), your guy Trump makes more false and libelous remarks and tweets in an hour than regular politicians do in a month. THAT'S damaging to the nation.

Also, your comments on Obama...the economy performed almost exactly the same under him as Trump. He inherited the crash, and then starting in 2010 unemployment came down sharply, the stock market went up tremendously, and the economy grew at 2-3% (just like it is now)

So please, take off the partisan goggles and work towards fixing the mess not just demonizing the other side.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Deplorables was a direct racist call out:

"what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters"

And white nationalism has exploded since.

If you try to shout that down, you are hiding a truth and covering for an evil.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

To be slightly harsh, a link.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

But which one produces the greatest overall good? Global capitalism, that's which one.

That doesn't mean the losers don't need help, that's where redistribution comes in. EdR, do you honestly think anything Trump does or wants to do has any effect on those left behind by the march of global capitalism? You seem pretty intelligent, and yet also seem caught up in the dumbest thing of all, tribal partisanship. You are Team Red, no matter what, no matter who it helps or hurts.

+1. Those who don't benefit from globalization should get a strong safety net to fallback on. This is the only rational way out. The discussion should be on what that should look like. I'm a libertarian and believe that free markets will produce the best efficiencies but there has to be a floor that the government must support to keep our capitalistic system from eating itself.

Respond

Add Comment

The set of losers is too large, and this is not just an issue in the US. Consider Brexit, the Yellow Vests, Italy, and the recent Australian election, which might have been more about climate change policies than globalism.

Regarding Trump and other politicians on all sides, I am cynical. I think he wants to be POTUS more than anything, the ultimate alpha male accomplishment for people that care about such things. I wouldn't want. Do I believe he really cares? No, I don't. Do I believe his policies will make any difference? I don't know but I hope so. China is a problem - IP theft, trade agreement violations, dumping, spying, and asserting itself militarily in the Pacific. We have to do something. The policies of the previous administration were obviously terrible based on the outcome. We had high unemployment, low labor participation, slow growth, hampered energy production, and divisive politics and race baiting by Obama. It was time for a change. It appears to be working - almost immediately after the election the "animal spirits" of the economy were unleashed.

Did Trump do that? I don't know, but I like it.

For the record, I have always thought Trump was obnoxious - egotistic, narcissistic, crude (less of a concern, my blue collar roots), and inarticulate. When he announced his candidacy I thought it was a PR stunt and rolled my eyes. As he campaigned, I thought "why not"? Here we are.

HRC was a terrible candidate, a money grubbing (Colin Powell) corporatist, selling her future access to power to the highest bidder, a compulsive liar, and a warmonger and a stupid one at that. Remember her comments about the Libyan insurrection and the murder of Gadaffi? She destabilized Libya which was a partial contributor to massive migration to Europe that triggered a predictable right wing backlash. She wasn't even smart enough to campaign in the 4-5 states in the upper Midwest despite pleas fro her own party and her politically astute husband

Now THAT is a loser.

..."We had high unemployment, ..."
You must have lived in a parallel universe.

Brought down to 4.7%
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/30/two-charts-show-trumps-job-gains-are-just-a-continuation-from-obamas-presidency/#1351c4d31af3

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

China is a problem - IP theft, trade agreement violations, dumping, spying, and asserting itself militarily in the Pacific.

China (or maybe some people in China) thinks the US is a problem, trying to control most of the earth's surface, even thousands of miles from its own borders; arresting, or causing the arrests, of non-US citizens everywhere; dropping bombs on civilians in remote areas and maintaining military forces at the ready and in action all over the world. And it's not like the US itself doesn't have a serious espionage program of its own . Dumping? If you've got a lot of Kooky-Kola on hand, aren't you likely to sell it at a discount before it reaches its sell-by date?

Sure, China is an economic competitor. If the US corporate/capitalist free-market system is the best there is why should the US fear the central-planned Chinese exercise in futility?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The phrasing of the link for minimum wage is classic sleight of hand.

From within that article

Katarina Murto, who heads up the STTK’s collective bargaining unit, said collective agreements cover some 90 percent of workers in Finland. These agreements specify minimum pay rates for various sectors. Any changes to this practice would exert downward pressure on salaries and weaken workers’ positions, according to Murto.

Murto said countries with low collective labour security employ minimum wage laws to safeguard workers

Respond

Add Comment

#4: Didn't the FT list the book on their long list for this year's Best Business Book? Interesting how they didn't review it before...

Respond

Add Comment

Re: #5
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
A shout out to the "Greens"

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment