Wednesday assorted links

Comments

#6: Eric > Ezra

Tyler likes public intellectuals with a weirdness factor. This is long term risky.

Why? Because someone might try to cancel him?

I read it as more of a “shame if something were happen to a nice guy like you......” type barely veiled threat.

Disagree. It's actually risky in the short term, less risky in the long term.

5. Good in its entirety.

Yes, I've only had time to glance at it but I like what I saw. I also like the cite of Acemoglu and Robinson's "narrow corridor" of development of the capacities of the state and of society.

I haven't read their Narrow Corridor book but it immediately brings to mind echoes of the Harrod-Domar model of development and its "knife-edge" path of optimal growth.

Solow convincingly argued that there's a better model of economic growth that does not have an economy perpetually teetering on or falling off a knife edge.

But one can imagine that in politics and policy, there might indeed be (and does seem to be) a narrow corridor where countries get things right, and most countries are out of the corridor or off of the knife edge. And in politics unlike markets, there are not market forces to push them back onto the straight and narrow so they veer off and in the worst cases turn into North Korea or Somalia.

+1

Good read, not sure I agree but it definitely falls under constructive criticism.

#1 Never let anything - much less a nanny - get in the way of absolute perfection I always say. And yet my ad for the perfect nanny remains unanswered these past 4 years. I'm sure it's the industry's fault.

#2 "Classical Liberal". These people keep using that word with that other word. I don't think it means what they think it means. Good grief it's new and it's already got a massive definition problem in the first paragraph.

#4 Secession is pretty much out as a concept, but new statehood and annexation by existing states is not. If we're to assume as we must that "the union" means you can't secede and form your own country, than there's nothing stopping from one state or a part of another state from joining someone else. Vexit is a newer example, but the situation in CA is not.

#1: Are we running so low on reasons to sneer down our nose at others that we resort to mocking people's ads for help? Or are we, as a society, so used to routinely maligning others that we don't even notice it anymore. Either way, I think it's time I (literally) take a page from Douglas Adam's "So Long And Thanks For All The Fish" and build the world a nice insane asylum.

Twitter gon' twitter, sadly.

I really liked that woman's responses. Unfortunate to see someone who seems like a rational person get swept into the undertow of our current wave of outrage culture.

Would appreciate it if #1 ad poster would start a new company to provide the rest of us with screened applicant for said job. River swimming, in my case, is not even required.

5 was a thoroughly good read.

Indeed. Canada was mentioned, there is more to the story.

It started in British Columbia, 1983. Politics were the NDP and Social Credit parties. WAC Bennett was premier for 20 years till 1972. His premiership could be described as a building of state capacity. The resource driven economy; mining, forestry, agriculture depended on infrastructure. During those years highways and bridges, ferry systems, hydroelectric dams were built. As well as government capacity. BC has a bi-polar political economy; the town I lived in had 5 whorehouses and a string quartet. The bankers, merchants and upright society had their parts of town, and every weekend miners with pockets full of cash showed up to drink and carouse. The NDP represented the workers, the Social Credit was conservative representing everyone else.

After years of steady growth and prosperity the high interest rates and recession in the US coupled with high cost structures that accumulated over the decades struck hard. So WAC Bennett's son passed legislation that got rid of job security for government workers, decreed that land use planning was abolished, and cut spending. Nationalized industries were sold, government agencies shrunk. This along with the economic downturn caused serious economic hurt; my small town saw multiple core industries and employers disappear. The last whorehouse become city property.

Alberta followed in 1984. Similar rationales; oil had high cost production during a time of low prices, too much government expenses had accumulated. The people and policies that were implemented and turned the province around and ready for the oil boom were the foundation of a political movement that dismantled the Progressive Conservative party soft right stances and eventually led to the longest serving prime minister. Who followed closely the Prime Minister who cut the deficit to nothing and ran balanced budgets for the rest of his long term in government, Jean Chretien.

Other provinces followed suit, more or less, and it was news, bad news for those in power when they ran deficits. The Federal government became paragons of fiscal probity, and politicians lost elections for wasting money and borrowing to cover their silliness.

What didn't happen was an actual shrinking of what government wanted to do or had legislated to do. They simply didn't have the money, so the regulatory reality was more about lack of enforcement.

Infrastructure improvements or even maintenance wasn't being done in some jurisdictions. Amazing how quickly the quality of public administration shows when they have to operate on tax revenues. A drive through Montreal revealed the horrific state of infrastructure, with a few bridges falling down. But the normal corrupt and inept government structures were intact.

The parliamentary system where 38% of the vote can give you a majority with no one to prevent you from passing legislation allowed both the building up of an untenable cost structure as well as it's dismantling when the money ran out.

As the article mentioned, the serious cuts and difficulties were borne by the citizenry with little disruption. In BC there was a vigorous movement towards a national strike, but a meeting between the Premier and Labour leader headed it off. Where I live saw an interesting lack of government authority where hard times were offset by a vigorous marijuana cultivation industry, at the same time almost no violent crime or disruption.

What has caused the most disruption in Canada has been the influx of cash from China, which has made housing very expensive, causing serious tears in the social fabric. As well as the availability of opiods, mixed with rare and expensive housing has created a very bad homeless situation. As well as a concerted effort to shut down the economic drivers of the western prairie provinces.

I would suggest that state capacity is only of value when there are societal structures underneath to keep it limited and demand accountability. It isn't the size of government, it is the quality. That comes from historical norms, societal norms.

The last Liberal government did something horrific that will have deep and lasting effects for the worst. A large company in Quebec has been caught bribing local and foreign governments. SNC Lavelin, a large engineering firm. They were being investigated by the Canadian Federal authorities. So what they did was lobby and likely fund the passing of a law that allowed the prosecutors in cases like this to consider the economic value of the firm when laying charges. It was passed by the Liberals in Parliament. The investigators handed their findings to prosecutors, and the custom is for the Justice minister to not meddle. The Prime Minister's office personnel, the political staff as well as the civil servants pressured the Justice Minister to get involved in the prosecution, leading to her being removed from the position.

Effective state capacity depends on the quality of governance, and Canada purposely threw away a limit on the venality of power. Then won an election where the greater Toronto and greater Vancouver voters gave them a minority government. Not a stable situation at all.

Some of this is the normal ebbs and flows of government venality, but I would suggest that the effectiveness of state capacity is directly proportional to it's venality. State capacity can just as easily blow through money building monuments to themselves, mandating renovating every bathroom in the country or spending 18 years getting your ass kicked by a bunch of goat herders.

So the question is what makes the difference?

1. This is an interesting case study in judging people. The ad on its face sounds ridiculous, but when you learn that the person is a single parent who is offering to pay $35-40/hour plus some nice perks, it seems quite reasonable.

4. This will be interesting too if it gets traction. My guess is that most people would not want to leave one of the richest states in the union for one of the poorest even if their political views are closer to the latters’.

Depends re: #4

We are seeing VA march backwards in time. Our Governor is a noted white supremacist, his political party is attemptingto roll civil rights back a century or more.

It does make one think long and hard about whether it is worth staying in the state.

Expect a decrease in violent crime in VA. Its law-abiding citizens bought 74,000 guns in the past month.

"74,000"

this is what I've never understood about the anti-gun movement. What do they intend to happen? Conservatively there's probably 400 million weapons in the USA. I'll add that a good 30-40 million of those would qualify as being categorized as "assault" weapons.

Do they really think they can make them disappear by passing a law? Solzhenitsyn was absolutely right. The extreme actionable part of their entire platform would result in an overnight police state, 50 million new felons, and an almost certain chance huge numbers of police and military wouldn't be going home to their families that evening.

What other than bombast is it supposed to actually accomplish except make people go out and buy more and more guns?

You guys could stop with the edge case hysteria
The Dems do not want to take away all your guns. Maybe some do, but they are the fringe. They do want tighter regulation of firearms. So do many Reps.

Except when we look at where dems have implemented their "common sense reforms" you have to squint pretty hard to tell them apart from outright bans (scotus agrees). If dems don't want to be confused for gun grabbers they should stop legislating like gun grabbers. If they're not the gun grabbers themselves, maybe speak out against the gun grabbers sharing a party with them?

This is what I mean. The lies, the pearl clutching. Hard to tell regulations like background checks and military style weapons restrictions from 'outright bans'? When both sides (the 'gun grabbers' and the 'I need 10 ARs' tribes) are like this, nothing can happen.

Maybe when you guys speak out against the arsenal idiots, then the gun grabbers will get sidelined too.

Frankly this would be awesome for the rest of the state if the counties bordering WV did leave. I don't even live in NoVA anymore, but where can I sign the petition?

#5: The very first hurdle that libertarians have to surmount before getting to "State Capacity Libertarianism" is taxation. Look, if you think that "taxation is theft," as many professed libertarians do, then Prof. Cowen's ruminations on state capacity simply won't speak to you. To have state capacity, you need to be able to pay for it, and it's not going to happen solely through use taxes, tolls, and other voluntary methods of collecting revenue for the state. So the first argument that "state capacity" needs to win on is convincing the "taxation is theft" crowd to drop their tax antipathy, accept taxation as a necessary tool to properly equip the state to do its job, and focus the argument on what that "job" should be. So far, I have not seen enough attention paid to that aspect, which in my view dooms the chances of "state capacity" of getting traction among libertarians. Among disaffected Republicans, you might have better luck.

I'm not a Libertarian, just a libertarian leaning conservative. But I think that group would actually out number Libertarians by a large margin. At least the hardcore "taxation is theft" set.

As such, I think there is a lot to be said for SCL. I don't think you'll find substantial objections to improving the quality of governance. And I think you can get Americans to agree to a larger government if they think it can be a substantially better government. But so far, there's no evidence of that happening in a consistent manner. So here we are.

"But so far, there's no evidence of that happening in a consistent manner. "

A good start would be resolving the multiple pension crises without additional funding. Or significant productivity improvements in health care or public schools. Frankly, just having a big military procurement come in under budget would be a step in the right direction.

Yes. If the largest 10 cities governed for decades by “more government” progressives achieved visibly better than average results across a basket of indicators - financial management, public safety, public infrastructure, education, even public hygiene - the results would speak for themselves. Instead their results provide examples to avoid, rather than emulate.

+1

The strangest thing about all these critiques is none bothered with the Public Choice elephant in the room.

The US governents spend per capita on health care about the same as Canada, with citizens spending another two or three times that to actually get care. (not sure of the amount, too lazy to look it up). Obviously they need to be able to raise more money so they can spend more for less.

State capacity can be used for good, or simply to enrich those connected in some way. More money won't make the second situation better.

I like Erik’s podcast but does he not sound like Brian from Family Guy trying to sound smart to impress women at times?

5. Sam Hammond on state capacity libertarianism.
------------
Spend time engaging with the local county clerk's office.

There is no state capacity left, the CBO has a chart, federal liquidity is gone, as measured by discretionary spending. Thiel is barking up a tree, and it is not the abstract tree.

The real abstract tree is the severe skew observed when viewing total government is a value added net. It takes a generation to get government goods priced, we are just now learning about losses incurred 40 years ago. Thiel wants to shorten that cycle, so do I. But you have to bark the right tree, ask why is the government goods channel so skewed? How much skew is tolerable? It is a problem of decomposing and pricing the long tails on the distribution. Structural analysis tells you the large probability moments in effect, and two stand out. The large/small state divide causes a 150 year adjustment and generational overlap a 50 year adjustment. Predictable from a simple observation of how Constitutional issues have been resolved in the past.

What doers abstract tree tell us?

In simple terms, the House has to pay off the state capitals for work accomplished by the Senators. A direct subsidy fro House to Senate, a trading place where good senate policy is purchased vi direct cash delivery to state capitals.

Absent a sound senators, the value chain has no sound management, it goes broke every generation. The solution comes from abstract tree, but fits all the great economic ideas of the past and puts them together.

Bark that tree. String pushing is guaranteed not to work.

I wax on, my proof is solid. A good reading of american history gets you there, small/large state has been and continues to be the major stopping point in history since 1750. And that issue gets tied up in generational handover. I am correct, most economists get the proof, it is done in economic terms.

The cost to repair? A 2 billion dollar a year cash grant to the Vermont state capital goes a long way for generating a good manegarial senator. A trading pit between the Senate and House, one single bid per budget period does the trick, the House pays off the Senate in cash. That comes to a hundred billion a year, typical. In six months the senators will get to work, within a year you have saved hundreds of billions.

Let us know when you re-enter Earth's orbit.

I will wax on.

Immediately the primary dealer system goes away. It is not that difficult to get one of those small state senators working a spread sheet. We already have one or two senators specializing in medical labor costs, a sever problem in small state. The specialization and expertise we generate is all based on one their, their state and job depend on it via the cash swap. The senate will be relatively neutral toward the democratic House policies, much more interested in making state dollars by managing them. Remember, this is cash up front to state capitals based on expected performance, how much surplus did they generate from the last budget.

The net effect will be to equalize the states, short term, medium term and long term. It will make the state system work since we are at least totally too incompetent to change constitution. Noting else has worked, this one does it, this is my, 'This time is different', I am fixing the longest pole in the tent and teaching country metaphors to us all.

...but sure we'll implement this cockamamie thing you are talking about here, no problem.

"5. Sam Hammond on state capacity libertarianism."

His point about "State capacity libertarianism" being a bad name is correct. Tyler, you need to find something a little be more eloquent and descriptive.

"good government" works, but leaves libertarianism somewhat behind.

Yes "good government" does work. But we don't have that. Or at least the government in the US today doesn't seem better than the government we had historically.

I'm saying it's a good rallying cry, or it would be if the "strangle in a bathtub" crowd didn't hold such sway.

Ronald Reagan's "most terrifying words in the English language" might have been right for the times, a period of government overshoot, but they don't work as endgame.

In the end someone more that "the left" has to stand for good government.

See also

https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Fifth-Risk/

No, you have super majorities of your ideology in over half a dozen states covering half the population of the country. You don’t need anyone to create your utopia. Trump is irrelevant to California governance.

You can implement your “good government” any time you wish, and in the tradition of laboratories of democracy we can learn from your wisdom.

So far the main priorities seem to be outlawing housing construction to increase the ROA for incumbent home owners, Prop 13 to increase ROA for incumbent home owners, hard school attendance laws to Imprison poor families who try to put their kids in good schools (to increase ROA of incumbent home owners), unsustainable increases in public sector union handouts with average compensation of well into the mid six figures, and shutting down all clean power generation.

I wear rain boots to work. There’s no rain.

Just heroin needles, crack vials, and human waste. I live in an area with an average home price of well over $2 million. Everything but governance is good. Everything governance related is third world.

See that’s where you’re wrong. California can’t have good government until people (read the rich) can’t leave. This is the reason people like Mr Krugman have been pushing for a global tax and regulatory state. It’s only after people have no where to go do they bend to the greatness of anonymous.

I love how he say "you" can, without getting the irony.

That's what I'm talking about, a deep American belief that only one "ideology" is responsible for good government.

anonymous ignoring the point so he can make snark is the worst anonymous.

I would go with "Strong State Libertarianism."

"State Capacity Libertarianism" is a fairly good way to signal to development and historical economists who think about "state capacity" that you're thinking about how to reconcile their "vast empirical literature" with the Libertarian tradition.

It's bad if you want an anchor term for a huge mass movement, but I'm not sure that is how Libertarian thought has been effective (rather than as an ideas generator which influences conservative parties).

If it did become coherent and go mass movement, I'll humbly suggest Neolibertarianism (though partly in irony).

"Neo" is such an outdated prefix! "Modern" is much better, and has cachet atm, ala "Modern Libertarian Theory". And much like MMT, MLT is predicated on simply printing things to solve your problems (in this case, laws).

The other nice thing about calling it MLT is that it lays the groundwork for the inevitable follow-up, Post-Modern Libertarian Theory.

Ouch. OK, that's probably a win.

6. Compared to the nonsense Klein blathers on about, read the four quadrants section. He describes what happened to his brother, where opposition to a ridiculous and radical person was turned into an accusation of racism and justification for violence.

Polarization is exemplified by what happened at Evergreen. It isn't that extreme ideas have never existed before, it is simply that these extremists are allowed to run the place. Standing against dangerous radical activists requires something akin to the Riot Act, which isn't moderate in practice, only in purpose.

The argument in the 4-quadrants article is essentially “People I disagree with are either rent-seekers or dupes”—that seems to be precisely the mindset that causes polarization.

He describes the rent seekers as those who label anyone who disagrees with them as a strategy to reach a specific goal. An example, again with the Evergreen situation, is the administrator. He had an idea how the college should approach the issue of race, and encouraged the craziness to accomplish his goal. The people wandering around threatening violence were doing his bidding, even if indirectly.

A similar thing happens with Antifa. People are willing to countenance the radicalism, even from time to time violence because of some goal they want to reach. They wouldn't dare participate or even encourage openly, but find the radicalism useful in meeting a goal.

This is very commonplace. You have your shock troops that raise the cost of opposition, making it easy to advance your agenda. Every movement has used this strategy to a greater or lesser extent. The shock troops get the attention, and once the goals are accomplished or create too much of a problem are quickly distanced from.

Trump did this initially as well. The Catholic Church had the Knights of Columbus and other groups that would make people afraid. An old old story.

This week a journalist was suspended at the Washington Post for a rather poorly timed tweet about Kobe Bryant. She has a history of going after individuals for not having the correct opinion, using the institutional power to do harm to them. It is interesting that she and her ways are no longer useful, it seems the ability to cause fear by these tactics has diminished, and possibly the reaction to these immoderate actions instead of being fear and compliance, is turning into a determined opposition. Hence I think the sudden interest in polarization. It is a problem now because the threats of harm aren't working anymore.

Dude thinks Evergreen and Antifa are pounding on his door.

Sorry, they are both tempests in teapots past.

Evergreen is an unimportant college the size of a large high school that no one heard of prior to the protests. It’s a stretch to call an administrator of such a school (in the original article’s words) a “shadowy rent­seeking elite.” Nor are “shock troops” of marginal groups like Antifa successfully raising the cost of opposition any more than the KKK is.

Regarding the Washington Post journalist, what does it mean for her to use “institutional power to do harm”? She clearly lacked institutional power as she was suspended. Moreover how could she do harm to Kobe Bryant who was already dead? She was merely expressing her opinion, as everyone has the right to do.

It seems to me that all this is is both sides trying to classify the other in unflattering terms. For instance, Weinstein complains that all anti-immigration people are tarred as racist, but then calls all pro-immigration views as “nakedly rent seeking.” This is as offensive as being called racist in some quarters so it seems like Weinstein is engaging in the exact kind of polarizing conduct he’s accusing others of doing. I could also write a “four-quadrants” analysis of the immigration issue where the quadrants are “shadowy white supremacists,” dupes that go along because they think this is really about wages, pro-immigration people who are always tarred and censored as out-of-touch elites, and a small number of oh-so-heroic people who can reason from the first principle that legal discrimination based on place of birth is morally the same as discrimination based on race of births to advocate for the very unpopular and stigmatized policy of open borders. I don’t think that breakdown would be very helpful, and Weinstein’s isn’t either.

The Catholic Church had the Knights of Columbus and other groups that would make people afraid.

You're afraid of the Knights, go home. You don't belong outdoors.

The level of ignorance in these comments is amazing. Evergreen was a small college indeed; very similar things happened in Missouri and other places. I used it as an illustration of his idea.

And I can see the 2020 election messaging forming. "Sorry, they are both tempests in teapots past." Amazing how quickly these shock troop tactics shrivel away when the results are opposite of what you want.

Interestingly my uncle years ago was treated not unlike Andy Ngo by mobs fomented by the catholic shock troops. They have become irrelevant and a long way from any power, thankfully. The world is a better place without them having that power. If you intend on being condescending and pompous, at least get the facts right.

This is like "remember the Alamo" except as parody.

I don't think Catholics are that bad. Many important figures were Catholics: Aquinas, Augustine, Mendel, Al Smith, Roberts, Scalia, etc.

#4. A local newspaper is one thing, but why TC would give a guy like that any air, or pay any attention to what he thinks, seems odd.

Yet he is one of the most influential Americans of our times.

6. In "Connecting the Dots...Traversing Fields", Weinstein explains why he started calling himself an economist, but he recently told Cowen on his "The Portal" podcast that he is not an economist. Quantum economist?

No? Why would he?

He understands what others do not. He can discern what is essential and, as Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong would have said, seek truth from facts. Think about it: sucessive Brazilian governments have supported the Palestinian regime. He chose another path.

#1

Please never link to slate again. Worthless site.

#4:

Many of our state borders are suboptimal. On possible solution is to reconstitute Virginia as a confederation between NoVa and the rest of the state. U.S. Senators would still be elected statewide and some joint commissions and reciprocal privileges would remain, but otherwise the two components would lead separate lives. A comprehensive set of adjustments would include (1) cession of the District of Columbia to Maryland, (2) reconstitution of Maryland as a confederation along said lines and (3) an interstate compact which provides for the formation of a municipal corporation with each component of greater Washington as a subsidiary element. That way, the quintessential Maryland, the quintessential Virginia, and greater Washington could each go their own way in public policy without the rigidities and the disruption of Congress which might attend the generation of wholly new states.

You mean some kind of one state, two systems?

No, two notional states (with a border at the Potomac) maintained as data collection and apportionment units and as electoral constiuencies for U.S. Senators. Each notional state would have a constitution that devolved legislative power on two components each. Then, two of the four components federate via inter-state compact. You have, in effect three states.

I do not think it would be legal.

It violates which law?

The 12th Amendment.

It's a troll that comes in and deliberately says things that will get removed from the sight. Often the whole sub-thread of comments will get deleted. It's a pretty transparent and very desperate attempt to get comments he doesn't like removed.

5." inelegant umbrella term."
Can we come up with a better term so that it will gain more traction?

1. To describe a servant of one's dreams. We have lots of internet sites for men and women to describe the mate of one's dreams, so why not a servant of one's dreams. You go, mammy!

What was wrong with my own childhood? My mother had none of these problems, society was organised. No research was required. The first half of the summer I spent my days at the yacht club in sailing school. The second half of the summer our family rented a beach house in Maine. The same yacht club every year, the same beach house every year. What is there to research? Was my childhood terrible with no nanny driving me around? I rode my bicycle down to the YC every morning, why does she need someone to drive her kids around? We lived in a small community (3k people, 4k horses)... I rode my bike down to the park to play organized soccer. We were not a horse family, we were a YC family. I know the "horsey set" drove to events on the weekends. We did go to different mountains to ski on weekends during the winter. When I was older I crewed, but the boat owner provided transportation back and forth, often with the boat, I do the same as the boat owner now. To me, the issue is this person does not know how to live, she is out of control.

#5...SCL sounds good to me. About this stagnation in science, how about the books...
The Goodness Paradox-Wrangham
Human Network-Matthew Jackson
Innate-Kevin Mitchell
Something Deeply Hidden-Sean Carroll
Blueprint-Nicholas Christakis
Blueprint-Robert Plomin
Brain That Changes Itself-Norman Doidge
I Contain Multitudes-Ed Yong
Who We Are How We Got Here-David Reich
Becoming Human-Michael Tomasello
Tangled Tree-David Quammen
I've read these books, some recommended by MR readers. Anyway, someone needs to tell the that they're all hype ,as I bought into them being cutting-edge science.

Finally, Secession is too lame to bother about.

Just call yourselves "Big Government Libertarians" because thats what you are.

Even though Cowen's "state capacity" government would be smaller than the current alternative?

As I said above, I think "state capacity" (or "strong state," in my formulation) needs to get past the "taxation is theft" mindset, which continues to hamstring libertarian thought and keep it from gaining wider traction. I'm not going to disagree with the basic logic and moral position behind "taxation is theft," just as I acknowledge the basic logic and morality underpinning things like slavery reparations, or the idea that what happened to the American Indians as a result of European colonization was wrong, and so forth. There are all sorts of wrongs out there left un-righted. The real issue is whether those wrongs can be constructively addressed. As it stands, taxation is necessary for there to be a functional government. The alternative is not beneficial for individual rights. So, at least for now, ending taxation is not on the table. Libertarianism needs to come to accept that point and move on if it's going to get anywhere.

Taxation is theft...No it's not, it's how we fund the government, whatever size it is. If you don't pay your fair share, you're living free off the labor of others. In a no government world, you'd be paying for protection, if Luca Brasi didn't just strip you clean.

🤔 so your argument is literally: "taking money from you by force is not stealing so long as you would have spent that money anyway". 😒 I'll just let you think about that for a while....

The argument is literally: "being an anarchist is childish, stupid, and gayer than Liberace's hot tub"

This going to extremes isn't helpful . There's s reasonable argument to be made for lower taxes and smaller government, but talking about zero government is lame

Talking about government is lame. Checkmate, libs.

Zero government will NEVER happen, and government will always be here, making you sad. Boo hoo.

According to WaPo, Falwell has not only come out for VA counties seceding to WVa, he has also come out for declaring Arlington and Alexandria to be part of DC, thus losing congressional representation as well as removing them against their wills from being part of VA, and has even proposed extending DC beyond just them to include more of VA that contains federal employees. Really, the man is quite shameless.

and has even proposed extending DC beyond just them to include more of VA that contains federal employees. Really, the man is quite shameless.

He's quite shamelessly sensible on the subject, which is why Professor Held-together-with-Psychotropics is up in arms. An even more sensible idea would be not staffing state colleges with obnoxious head cases.

6. I find no one more interesting than Eric Weinstein.

Some great new ideas with this man, but I was disappointed by his recent discussion with Tom Bilyeu. Eric pushes the idea that failing students are actually geniuses with unconventional learning styles that the school system has failed to properly engage, with himself as an example. While this is likely true in his case, it is certainly unlikely that this is what is going on with most failing students. The sad truth is that many kids are just dumb, and they are dumb at everything, and there is no genius to be unlocked by Howard-Gardneresque customized teaching approaches.

2. (Academic Public Discourse Management) + (Credentialed Public Discourse Management) = (Non-credentialed, non-academic discourse prohibition and marginalization)

Id est: our corrupt and corrupting Media Sector, having helped corrupt our sclerotic and constipated Academic Sector with generous connivances from our corrupt and corrupting Tech Sector, remains pleased to limit and control public discourse, even though our corrupt and corrupting Cognitive Elites have no Constitutional authority for managing public discourse.

#7: Coasian communications: if people fail to communicate well, is it the fault of the people on the autism spectrum, or the fault of the neurotypical people?

Comments for this post are closed